 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Film vs. DV by FoK 05/27/2003, 1:09pm PDT | ||||
 |
 |
|||
James Cameron wrote: Hmm... wouldn't that point to the fact that film already looks pretty much as good as possible, while DV still has lots of room for improvement? Honestly, the DV pictures I've seen look like OPEN ASS compared to stuff shot on film (no, I didn't see the latest Star Wars movie). Two examples I've seen recently: Session 9 and Panic... neither one is anything approaching a good movie, but they're made gigantically more ghetto by the fact that they were shot in DV. My own test of DV (this is a bit of a mental exercise) is to picture the best cult films of the past shot in digital instead of film (as they conceivably could have been if they were made today). Evil Dead? Weak. Re-Animator? Looks like garbage. DV just looks like trash, it doesn't hold your attention. I see it as proof (as if more was needed) that George Lucas has lot any kind of aesthetic judgement - that he thinks DV looks like anything people would want to watch. He can benchmark it all he wants, the lack of quality is right there onscreen. FoK |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
James Cameron's first non-Titanic movie in like 20 years... by 05/27/2003, 12:53pm PDT  Film vs. DV by 05/27/2003, 1:09pm PDT Re: Film vs. DV by 05/27/2003, 1:27pm PDT Re: Film vs. DV by 05/27/2003, 4:29pm PDT Silent Hill 3 protagonist by 05/29/2003, 2:48am PDT Sounds like he's remaking Captain Eo NT by 06/01/2003, 2:49pm PDT |
